DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 11-13 and 20 have been amended. Claim 21 has been newly added. Claim 5 has been/remains canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-11 of the remark filed on 05/13/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent Claims 1: “polling second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes in the second subsets agree on the selection,;”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9 that the cited references fail to teach polling second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes in the second subsets agree on the selection. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Christidis teaches on Par. (0022) polling a second subset of validator nodes such as nodes A and B polling or voting against votes or polling of nodes C and D to determine consensus. The subset of nodes polling or voting are stated by tallying each validator node. Examiner states the phrase “subset” is not defined to include a specific number therefore Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets in light of the specification that more than one node in a group that votes or is polled meets the claimed limitation. Christidis teaches on Par. (0029) until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference by consecutively voting until a preference of good votes is ensured. Christidis further teaches a second threshold on Par. (0025) describing multiple predetermined thresholds are used to count polling or votes. Christidis teaches on Par. (0024, 0029) describing a threshold of 6 consecutive bad votes being met and another threshold of identical votes being a threshold. Christidis further teaches on Par. (0029-0032) with a preference of good votes being met an consecutive consensus rounds of voting compared to a threshold of identical votes to determine and receive a decision as well as selection described on Par. (0018-0020) based on consensus and voting.
Applicant further argues on page 9 last two paragraphs that the cited references fail to teach “the second mechanism”. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner states that the limitation second mechanism is not define and a broad terminology, therefore in light of the specification Christidis teaches on Par. (0006-0008, 0022-0024 and 0029) validator nodes in a blockchain that use probabilistic analysis as stated on Par. (0017) of “likely to vote” and collecting identical votes, six votes, four votes and positive or negative. These nodes determine consecutive votes and a consensus or finalized selection stated on Par. (0018-0020). Examiner states that Christidis teaches on Par. (0029) consecutive rounds of voting to determine consensus. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
However Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 9-15 of the remark filed on 05/13/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “the first threshold value sufficient to define a quorum of the first subset; the second threshold value sufficient to define a quorum for each of the second subsets polled by the second mechanism; and”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953) further in view of Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Huang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097059) in conjunction Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953) further in view of Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 8-11, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Ford-Huang-Christidis teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims and 1, 11 and 20 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a first mechanism configured to” and “a second mechanism configured to” in claims 1, 9-10 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Structures and functions of the aforementioned limitations are disclosed in the following Figures and paragraphs of the specification:
Structures and functions of the aforementioned limitations are disclosed in the following Figures and paragraphs of the specification:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to Claims 1, 9-10 and 20, the applicant recites the limitations “first mechanism configured to” and “second mechanism configured to” that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-8, 12-19 and 21 are being additionally rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 10-13 and 19-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) and Huang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097059, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”) further in view of Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”)
In regards to Claim 1, Ford teaches a computer-implemented method for implementing consensus protocols, the method comprising: (Par. (0006); consensus protocol methods)
executing a first mechanism configured to determine a preference, from among a plurality of choices, for nodes in a blockchain network by polling a first subset of the nodes, (Par. (0062-0064) a first mechanism (node) determine a preference from plurality of choices (each node chooses the most fit proposal from a plurality of proposals based on metric value)), (Par. (0297-0299); by polling a first subset of the nodes (choices of subset in a group to agree on consensus)), (Par. (0306 and 0315-0316); by polling a first subset of the nodes (each node that includes participating node group and leader node group makes choice, each round each node has choice))
wherein the preference is established when at least a first threshold value of the nodes in the first subset agree on a selection of one of the plurality of choices; (Par. (0102-0105); subset of participant nodes with received threshold)), (Par. (0189, 0218-0221)); nodes agreeing and confirming based on threshold and majority)), (Par. (0315-0316); choice is agreed and made followed by selection of one of the plurality of choices (decision is made based on choice formed by participants and proposal is committed))
finalizing a consensus decision of the blockchain network based on the finalized state detected by the second mechanism. (Par. (0316); node accepts proposal and decision is committed based on consensus protocols), (Par. (0068-0069); finalize a decision (validate a decision and recording), (Par. (0198); committing a decision for each proposal and associated consensus round), (Par. (0215-0218); finalized state detected by the second mechanism (different nodes/ separately considering final decision; nodes decide on final decision then broadcasted and returned decision is chosen))
Ford does not explicitly teach the first threshold value sufficient to define a quorum of the first subset; executing a second mechanism configured to: use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling the second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes on the second subsets agree on the selection; the second threshold value sufficient to define a quorum for each of the second subsets polled by the second mechanism; and
Wherein Huang teaches the first threshold value sufficient to define a quorum of the first subset; (Par. (0033); first threshold value is met corresponding to quorum members)), (Par. (0006-0007); define a quorum of the first subset (subset of computer nodes as quorum)), (Figure 2 label 502 and Par. (0020); quorum of the first subset (label 502 represents subset of computer nodes))
the second threshold value sufficient to define a quorum for each of the second subsets polled by the second mechanism; and (Par. (0033); second threshold is met corresponding to define quorum members), (Par. (0006-0007); to define a quorum for each of the second subsets (subset of computer nodes as quorum)), (Figure 2 label 502 and Par. (0020); to define a quorum for each of the second subsets (label 502 and second 502 label represents subset of computer nodes)), (Par. (0020); quorum member as subset of computer nodes are asked to vote again for another threshold value with new round that defines quorum members))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford to incorporate the teaching of Huang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of implementing a threshold value corresponding to the selection using quorums to have an enhanced verification system and detect possible spoof, modified or forged entities by comparing against a preset value and in return assuring users in the blockchain that the consensus protocol will lead to a prevention of harm and vulnerabilities. (Huang Par. (0025))
Ford and Huang do not explicitly teach executing a second mechanism configured to: use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling the second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes on the second subsets agree on the selection;
Wherein Christidis teaches executing a second mechanism configured to: (Par. (0006-0008); second mechanism (plurality of nodes corresponding to consensus and voting))
use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, (Par. (0017); probabilistic analysis of node preferences (nodes determining “likely” to vote)) (Par. (0029); to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state (detecting/validating a number of consecutive good votes for final consensus decision)), (Par. (0022 and 0029); to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state (consensus decision is met after polling subsets (tally and comparing votes))
the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling the second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, (Par. (0022, 0024 0029); polling the second subsets of the nodes (voting and votes for node A and B amongst a plurality of nodes and voting for nodes C and D) in a series of polling rounds (every consensus round, number of consensus round and consecutive voting)), (Par. (0029); until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference (until a number of good votes it met as the preference), (Par. (0024, 0035, 0040); until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference (predetermined number of votes is equal, above or below threshold value)),
wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes on the second subsets agree on the selection; (Par. (0024, 0029); second threshold (threshold of six consecutive bad votes and a second threshold of identical votes being met) (Par. (0025, 0028-0029); second threshold (multiple predetermined thresholds such as bad vote count as threshold and good vote count that must be met as threshold), (Par. (0029-0032); preference of consecutive good votes are tallied and consensus rounds of votes are compared to threshold number of votes being made to determine consensus decision)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Huang to incorporate the teaching of Christidis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies associated with polling/elections, with the motivation protecting the integrity of the blockchain with confirmed transactions associated with consensus and voting to provide feedback to users and securely protected the data based on specific voting/polling criteria. (Christidis Par. (0003-0007))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising initializing the plurality of choices by gossiping the plurality of choices to the nodes in the blockchain network. (Par. (0091); gossiping proposals and confirmations to all nodes in blockchain), (Par. (0038-0039); propose gossip, decide corresponding to consensus of blockchain), (Par. (0183-0184); choosing proposals and gossiping to majority of nodes)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value are distinct. (Par. (0203-0204); collected threshold witnessed messages and collected threshold witnessed proposals that differ; threshold of proposals with value and threshold of witnessed with threshold value) (Par. (0116-0119); threshold parameters of message threshold and witness threshold))
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein executing the second mechanism configured to detect that the blockchain network has decided further comprises: (Par. (0316); node accepts proposal and decision is committed based on consensus protocols), (Par. (0068-0069); finalize a decision (validate a decision and recording), (Par. (0198); committing a decision for each proposal and associated consensus round)
randomly sampling a subset of the nodes; and (Par. (0160-0161); random selection of nodes in blockchain and randomly selection neighbor)
detecting that the blockchain network has decided based on at least the subset indicating a selected preference reaching the second threshold value. (Par. (0069); node decision relayed corresponding to threshold), (Par. (0221); nodes decides corresponding to threshold witnessed by majority), (Par. (0316); multiple node decisions based on time threshold), (Par. (0338-0339); second threshold value threshold time layers)
In regards to Claim 11, Ford teaches a system for implementing consensus protocols, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory comprising instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to: (Par. (0006); consensus protocol) (Par. (0432-0433); storage medium with processors and memory)
determine, in a first mechanism of a consensus protocol, a preference, from among a plurality of choices, for nodes in a blockchain network by polling a first subset of nodes (Par. (0062-0064) a first mechanism (node) determine a preference from plurality of choices (each node chooses the most fit proposal from a plurality of proposals based on metric value)), (Par. (0297-0299); by polling a first subset of the nodes (choices of subset in a group to agree on consensus)), (Par. (0306 and 0315-0316); by polling a first subset of the nodes (each node that includes participating node group and leader node group makes choice, each round each node has choice))
wherein the preference is established when at least a first threshold value of the nodes in the first subset of nodes agree on a selection of one of the plurality of choices; (Par. (0102-0105); subset of participant nodes with received threshold)), (Par. (0189, 0218-0221)); nodes agreeing and confirming based on threshold and majority)), (Par. (0315-0316); choice is agreed and made followed by selection of one of the plurality of choices (decision is made based on choice formed by participants and proposal is committed))
finalizing a consensus decision of the blockchain network based on the finalized state detected by the second mechanism. (Par. (0316); node accepts proposal and decision is committed based on consensus protocols), (Par. (0068-0069); finalize a decision (validate a decision and recording), (Par. (0198); committing a decision for each proposal and associated consensus round), (Par. (0215-0218); finalized state detected by the second mechanism (different nodes/ separately considering final decision; nodes decide on final decision then broadcasted and returned decision is chosen))
Ford does not explicitly teach the first threshold value sufficient to define a quorum of the first subset; detect, in a second mechanism of the consensus protocol using probabilistic analysis of node preferences, the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes in the second subsets agree on the selection, the second threshold value sufficient to define a quorum for each of the second subsets polled by the second mechanism; and
Wherein Huang teaches the first threshold value sufficient to define a quorum of the first subset; (Par. (0033); first threshold value is met corresponding to quorum members)), (Par. (0006-0007); define a quorum of the first subset (subset of computer nodes as quorum)), (Figure 2 label 502 and Par. (0020); quorum of the first subset (label 502 represents subset of computer nodes))
the second threshold value sufficient to define a quorum for each of the second subsets polled by the second mechanism; and (Par. (0033); second threshold is met corresponding to define quorum members), (Par. (0006-0007); to define a quorum for each of the second subsets (subset of computer nodes as quorum)), (Figure 2 label 502 and Par. (0020); to define a quorum for each of the second subsets (label 502 and second 502 label represents subset of computer nodes)), (Par. (0020); quorum member as subset of computer nodes are asked to vote again for another threshold value with new round that defines quorum members))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford to incorporate the teaching of Huang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of implementing a threshold value corresponding to the selection using quorums to have an enhanced verification system and detect possible spoof, modified or forged entities by comparing against a preset value and in return assuring users in the blockchain that the consensus protocol will lead to a prevention of harm and vulnerabilities. (Huang Par. (0025))
Ford and Huang do not explicitly teach detect, in a second mechanism of the consensus protocol using probabilistic analysis of node preferences, the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes in the second subsets agree on the selection,
Wherein Christidis teaches detect, in a second mechanism of the consensus protocol using probabilistic analysis of node preferences, the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, (Par. (0006-0008); second mechanism (plurality of nodes corresponding to consensus and voting)), (Par. (0017); probabilistic analysis of node preferences (nodes determining “likely” to vote)) (Par. (0029); to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state (detecting/validating a number of consecutive good votes for final consensus decision)), (Par. (0022 and 0029); to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state (consensus decision is met after polling subsets (tally and comparing votes))
the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, (Par. (0022, 0024 0029); polling the second subsets of the nodes (voting and votes for node A and B amongst a plurality of nodes and voting for nodes C and D) in a series of polling rounds (every consensus round, number of consensus round and consecutive voting)), (Par. (0029); until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference (until a number of good votes it met as the preference), (Par. (0024, 0035, 0040); until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference (predetermined number of votes is equal, above or below threshold value)),
wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes in the second subsets agree on the selection, (Par. (0024, 0029); second threshold (threshold of six consecutive bad votes and a second threshold of identical votes being met) (Par. (0025, 0028-0029); second threshold (multiple predetermined thresholds such as bad vote count as threshold and good vote count that must be met as threshold), (Par. (0029-0032); preference of consecutive good votes are tallied and consensus rounds of votes are compared to threshold number of votes being made to determine consensus decision)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Huang to incorporate the teaching of Christidis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies associated with polling/elections, with the motivation protecting the integrity of the blockchain with confirmed transactions associated with consensus and voting to provide feedback to users and securely protected the data based on specific voting/polling criteria. (Christidis Par. (0003-0007))
In regards to Claim 12, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis teach the system of claim 11, Ford further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to initialize the plurality of choices by gossiping the plurality of choices to the nodes in the blockchain network. (Par. (0091); gossiping proposals and confirmations to all nodes in blockchain), (Par. (0038-0039); propose gossip, decide corresponding to consensus of blockchain), (Par. (0183-0184); choosing proposals and gossiping to majority of nodes)
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis teach the system of claim 11, Ford further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value are distinct. (Par. (0203-0204); collected threshold witnessed messages and collected threshold witnessed proposals that differ; threshold of proposals with value and threshold of witnessed with threshold value) (Par. (0116-0119); threshold parameters of message threshold and witness threshold))
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis teach the system of claim 11, Ford further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: randomly sample a subset of the nodes; and (Par. (0160-0161); random selection of nodes in blockchain and randomly selection neighbor)
detect that the blockchain network has decided based on at least the subset indicating a selected preference reaching the second threshold value. (Par. (0069); node decision relayed corresponding to threshold), (Par. (0221); nodes decides corresponding to threshold witnessed by majority), (Par. (0316); multiple node decisions based on time threshold), (Par. (0338-0339); second threshold value threshold time layers)
In regards to Claim 20, Ford teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, comprising: (Par. (0433); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium)) (Par. (0432-0433); storage medium with processors and memory)
executing a first mechanism configured to determine a preference, from among a plurality of choices, for nodes in a blockchain network by polling a first subset of the nodes, (Par. (0062-0064) a first mechanism (node) determine a preference from plurality of choices (each node chooses the most fit proposal from a plurality of proposals based on metric value)), (Par. (0297-0299); by polling a first subset of the nodes (choices of subset in a group to agree on consensus)), (Par. (0306 and 0315-0316); by polling a first subset of the nodes (each node that includes participating node group and leader node group makes choice, each round each node has choice))
wherein the preference is established when at least a first threshold value of the nodes in the first subset agree on a selection of one of the plurality of choices, (Par. (0102-0105); subset of participant nodes with received threshold)), (Par. (0189, 0218-0221)); nodes agreeing and confirming based on threshold and majority)), (Par. (0315-0316); choice is agreed and made followed by selection of one of the plurality of choices (decision is made based on choice formed by participants and proposal is committed))
finalizing a consensus decision of the blockchain network based on the finalized state detected by the second mechanism. (Par. (0316); node accepts proposal and decision is committed based on consensus protocols), (Par. (0068-0069); finalize a decision (validate a decision and recording), (Par. (0198); committing a decision for each proposal and associated consensus round), (Par. (0215-0218); finalized state detected by the second mechanism (different nodes/ separately considering final decision; nodes decide on final decision then broadcasted and returned decision is chosen))
Ford does not explicitly teach the first threshold value sufficient to define a quorum of the first subset; executing a second mechanism configured to: use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling the second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes on the second subsets agree on the selection; the second threshold value sufficient to define a quorum for each of the second subsets polled by the second mechanism; and
Wherein Huang teaches the first threshold value sufficient to define a quorum of the first subset; (Par. (0033); first threshold value is met corresponding to quorum members)), (Par. (0006-0007); define a quorum of the first subset (subset of computer nodes as quorum)), (Figure 2 label 502 and Par. (0020); quorum of the first subset (label 502 represents subset of computer nodes))
the second threshold value sufficient to define a quorum for each of the second subsets polled by the second mechanism; and (Par. (0033); second threshold is met corresponding to define quorum members), (Par. (0006-0007); to define a quorum for each of the second subsets (subset of computer nodes as quorum)), (Figure 2 label 502 and Par. (0020); to define a quorum for each of the second subsets (label 502 and second 502 label represents subset of computer nodes)), (Par. (0020); by the second mechanism (quorum member as subset of computer nodes are asked to vote again for another threshold value with new round that defines quorum members))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford to incorporate the teaching of Huang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of implementing a threshold value corresponding to the selection using quorums to have an enhanced verification system and detect possible spoof, modified or forged entities by comparing against a preset value and in return assuring users in the blockchain that the consensus protocol will lead to a prevention of harm and vulnerabilities. (Huang Par. (0025))
Ford and Huang do not explicitly teach executing a second mechanism configured to: use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling the second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes on the second subsets agree on the selection;
Wherein Christidis teaches executing a second mechanism configured to: (Par. (0006-0008); second mechanism (plurality of nodes corresponding to consensus and voting))
use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state, (Par. (0017); probabilistic analysis of node preferences (nodes determining “likely” to vote)) (Par. (0029); to detect the blockchain network has decided on a finalized state (detecting/validating a number of consecutive good votes for final consensus decision)), (Par. (0022 and 0029); to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state (consensus decision is met after polling subsets (tally and comparing votes))
the probabilistic analysis comprising: polling the second subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference, (Par. (0022, 0024 0029); polling the second subsets of the nodes (voting and votes for node A and B amongst a plurality of nodes and voting for nodes C and D) in a series of polling rounds (every consensus round, number of consensus round and consecutive voting)), (Par. (0029); until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference (until a number of good votes it met as the preference), (Par. (0024, 0035, 0040); until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference (predetermined number of votes is equal, above or below threshold value)),
wherein for each of the consecutive polls, the preference is established when a second threshold value of the nodes on the second subsets agree on the selection; (Par. (0024, 0029); second threshold (threshold of six consecutive bad votes and a second threshold of identical votes being met) (Par. (0025, 0028-0029); second threshold (multiple predetermined thresholds such as bad vote count as threshold and good vote count that must be met as threshold), (Par. (0029-0032); preference of consecutive good votes are tallied and consensus rounds of votes are compared to threshold number of votes being made to determine consensus decision)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Huang to incorporate the teaching of Christidis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies associated with polling/elections, with the motivation protecting the integrity of the blockchain with confirmed transactions associated with consensus and voting to provide feedback to users and securely protected the data based on specific voting/polling criteria. (Christidis Par. (0003-0007))
In regards to Claim 21, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first mechanism is separate and distinct from the second mechanism. (Par. (0062-0064 and 0070) a first mechanism (node that endorses) and second mechanism (node that orders) are distinct by the task they perform))
Claim 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”), Huang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097059, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Ben-David et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190318346, hereinafter referred to as “Ben-David”)
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the first threshold value of the first mechanism is equal to 51% and the second threshold value of the second mechanism is equal to 75%.
Wherein Ben-David teaches wherein the first threshold value of the first mechanism is equal to 51% and the second threshold value of the second mechanism is equal to 75%. (Par. (0116); first and second threshold value (maximum and minimum thresholds value), (Par. (0048-0049); threshold defined has 51% and 75% in blockchain corresponding to majority vote)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford, Huang and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Ben-David to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of having a specific value that needs to be met to further enhance the consensus protocol and allows nodes validating transaction to have a means of comparison in detecting values that do not meet the criteria and in return preventing the system from compromise, harm and error results of exchanges conducted. (Ben-David Par. (0012-0013))
Claims 7-8 and 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”), Huang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097059, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Manevich et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210326352, hereinafter referred to as “Manevich”)
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis do not explicitly teach tracking a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and updating the current state based on preferences of the nodes.
Wherein Manevich teaches tracking a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and (Par. (0071-0073); tracking a current state (inspecting and verifying a current state to proposal is verified and passed)
updating the current state based on preferences of the nodes. (Par. (0086); updating the current state of the blockchain corresponding to proposal based on preference of nodes (consensus of nodes adding content with size of message being small))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford, Huang and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0037))
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis do not explicitly teach updating a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network.
Wherein Manevich teaches updating a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network. (Par. (0051) updating a node preference (update a proposed change) based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network (based on proof from majority of blockchain peers)), (Par. (0050); majority of peers agreeing), (Par. (0059-0060); based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network (majority of nodes voting corresponding to updating the state))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford, Huang and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0072 and 0086))
In regards to Claim 16, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to track a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and update the current state based on preferences of the nodes.
Wherein Manevich teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to track a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and (Par. (0003); processor) (Par. (0071); current state corresponding to proposal is verified and passed)
update the current state based on preferences of the nodes. (Par. (0086); updating the current state of the blockchain corresponding to proposal based on preference of nodes (consensus of nodes adding content with size of message being small))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford, Huang and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0072 and 0086))
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to update a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network.
Wherein Manevich teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to update a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network. (Par. (0051) updating a node preference (update a proposed change) based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network (based on proof from majority of blockchain peers)), (Par. (0050); majority of peers agreeing), (Par. (0059-0060); based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network (majority of nodes voting corresponding to updating the state)) (Par. (0002); processor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford, Huang and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0072 and 0086))
Claim 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”), Huang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097059, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Ben-David et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190318346, hereinafter referred to as “Ben-David”)
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Ford, Huang and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the first threshold value is equal to 51% and the second threshold value is equal to 75%.
Wherein Ben-David teaches wherein the first threshold value is equal to 51% and the second threshold value is equal to 75%. (Par. (0116); first and second threshold value (maximum and minimum thresholds value), (Par. (0048-0049); threshold defined has 51% and 75% in blockchain corresponding to majority vote)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford, Huang and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Ben-David to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of having a specific value that needs to be met to further enhance the consensus protocol and allows nodes validating transaction to have a means of comparison in detecting values that do not meet the criteria and in return preventing the system from compromise, harm and error results of exchanges conducted. (Ben-David Par. (0012-0013))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 15 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dependent claims 6, 9, 15 and 18 and their respective dependent claims, are allowable over the prior art of record including Ford, Huang and Christidis and the remaining references cited by the Examiner, since the prior art, taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest or render obvious;
switching, based on preferences of the nodes in the blockchain network reaching at least the first threshold value, the selection corresponding to at least one of the nodes of the blockchain network, as specified in claims 6 and 15.
wherein executing the first mechanism configured to determine the preference further comprises: randomly sampling a subset of the nodes; receiving responses from the subset indicating choice selections; and selecting the preference based on the responses reaching the first threshold value, as specified in claims 9 and 18.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MOLLOY; Katharine (U.S Pub. No. 20240106650) “TRANSACTION SIGNATURE FLAGS”. Considered this reference because it addressed consecutive quorums and threshold values corresponding to consensus protocol.
Kachur; Sergey (U.S Pub. No. 20230252510) “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BLOCKCHAIN-BASED INFORMATION SHARING”. Considered this application because it relates to multiple threshold values and on or more choices in blockchain network with quorums.
Zamani; Mahdi (U.S No. 11902456) “Blockchain Sharding With Adjustable Quorums”. Considered this application because it addressed threshold values in consensus blockchain associated with quorums.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASSAN A HUSSEIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights